傻爷说币

This incident with SAND is even more tricky from a risk perspective than ONE. ONE is an independent chain; if something goes wrong, it can coordinate with validator chains to roll back and erase the illegally minted tokens. SAND is merely a token running on someone else’s chain, with no underlying permissions at the blockchain layer—so there is no chain rollback. Once the cross-chain contract is compromised, the malicious tokens will spread and circulate widely, with no underlying way to revoke them.

SAND is a multi-chain ERC20 token. Cross-chain contracts face the risk of minted-forging without a rollback safeguard. There is a huge gap compared to the underlying hard-cap architectures of RVN and BTC.

SAND is merely an ERC‑20 token on top of Ethereum; it is not an independent blockchain. The OF cross-chain wrapper contracts deployed on multiple chains such as BSC, Base, and MATIC have independent minting logic. If a contract has a vulnerability, it can create an enormous amount of tokens out of thin air. In contrast, BTC and RVN are layer-1 base blockchains, with a total supply of 21 billion hard-coded directly into the underlying code, thereby preventing arbitrary issuance at the root.

When ONE, as an L1 blockchain, encounters an inflation vulnerability, it can still rely on network-wide validators to perform chain rollbacks to erase the illegal tokens. But for multi-chain deployed ERC20 tokens like SAND, once a cross-chain contract goes wrong, there is no way to rollback on-chain to destroy the illegally minted tokens on other chains. The project can only shut down cross-chain channels for isolation, making risk response highly passive. This time, the vulnerability was exploited in the cross-chain contract on the Base chain. The original mainnet Ethereum version of the total SAND supply with a hard cap was not breached, but it also exposed an inherent weakness of the multi-chain OF cross-chain model: each chain’s wrapper contract is an independent risk point. If the permissions of any one cross-chain contract are compromised, it will produce a massive amount of fake tokens and disrupt the market order book across the whole ecosystem. At least ONE has a native rollback mechanism to cover the risk. SAND lacks the underlying blockchain-level capability; if multiple chains’ cross-chain contracts are compromised in succession, the project has no native technical remediation measures.

SAND is merely an ERC‑20 token on top of Ethereum, not an independent blockchain. The OF cross-chain wrapper contracts deployed across multiple chains such as BSC, Base, and MATIC have independent minting logic—once a vulnerability appears in a contract, attackers can mint an enormous number of tokens out of thin air. Compared with BTC and RVN: both are layer-1 blockchains, with a total supply of 21 billion hard-coded directly into the base protocol, thereby preventing arbitrary issuance at the root. As an L1 chain, when ONE encounters a minting vulnerability, it can rely on network validators to roll back the chain and eliminate the illegal tokens. But for multi-chain deployed ERC20 tokens like SAND, after a cross-chain contract goes wrong, there is no chain rollback mechanism to destroy the illegitimately minted tokens on other chains; the only option is for the project team to shut down the cross-chain channels for isolation. As a result, the risk response is highly passive.

SAND is not an independent chain; it is merely an ERC20 token on Ethereum. The cross-chain wrapper contracts on each chain—BSC, Base, and MATIC—are independent risk points. If any of them is compromised, an attacker can mint large amounts. Since ONE is a public chain, it can also roll back the chain to remediate. SAND has no underlying public-chain capabilities; if something goes wrong, it can only rely on manual shutdown and cross-chain isolation, with no native rollback or burn mechanism. Compared to BTC and RVN, which hard-code the total supply limit into the underlying code, their risk architectures are vastly different. Note that the vulnerability lies in the cross-chain contracts: the original SAND contract on the Ethereum mainnet has not been breached, but multi-chain deployment introduces multiple attack surfaces, so the risk should not be underestimated.

A Base-chain SAND has triggered an infinite minting alert; monitoring shows that more than 500 million tokens have already been created, and the attack is still ongoing. The vulnerability lies in a smart-contract permission flaw, which can easily lead to token dilution and a sell-off. However, the risk only occurs in Base cross-chain derivative contracts; the original SAND on the Ethereum mainnet has not been affected. Compared with the ONE and LUNA incidents, this time there is no need for a chain rollback—officially, they shut down cross-chain isolation for the abnormal tokens. South Korean exchanges have paused deposits and withdrawals, and price volatility is intense. Don’t rush into betting on a rebound; wait for the official complete incident report.

SAND triggers an abnormal minting alarm; two major South Korean exchanges urgently suspend deposits and withdrawals. The vulnerability lies in the Base and BSC cross-chain contract—not in the Ethereum mainnet native token. The 3 billion supply cap on the mainnet was not broken. The official team shuts down cross-chain functionality, isolates the abnormal tokens, and prepares compensation for affected LPs. Compared to the LUNA and ONE incidents, there’s no need for a chain rollback this time, but the cross-chain security has exposed shortcomings. The mainnet fundamentals haven’t collapsed, which doesn’t mean the market will be repaired immediately—you need to wait for the complete incident report.

After reviewing today, the discussion heat between RVN and OP has diverged. RVN is still digesting the post-event chips, and the volume and price do not show a clear direction. OP has made moves, but the力度 is insufficient. POL’s trading is calm, with no obvious fund flow anomalies. At the moment, the market signals are fragmented and not extreme, so it’s suitable to wait and observe rather than rush to act. Keep a close eye on volume, price, and the order book/position of chips; make plans only when the structure becomes clear. Put risk control first and don’t let market hype drive your decisions.

ZIL, EGLD, and ONE are the three biggest early-stage sharding L1 public chains in the industry. Everyone hopes to solve blockchain scalability challenges with sharded parallel processing, but their token models, security track records, and the crises they’ve faced are completely different, and their market valuations have diverged dramatically.

ZIL is the earliest public chain to deliver sharding in the industry. With a hard cap of 21 billion tokens, it initially used a hybrid PoW consensus. It later upgraded to PoS and completed EVM compatibility. It then pivoted toward the gaming and RWA sectors. The underlying chain protocol has never had a minting-level vulnerability. The previous incident was a wallet client signing vulnerability—not a flaw in the chain’s security foundation. Its weaknesses are that early institutional holdings were unlocked in batches, causing the ecosystem’s heat to remain relatively flat for a long time, and its market cap has continued to be undervalued. EGLD uses adaptive state sharding, and the entire architecture has been optimized through deep end-to-end integration. It focuses on high throughput and low fees. Its token supply includes an inflation-release mechanism, with no hard cap. The project has never experienced a malicious minting incident at the protocol level. Its ecosystem is centered on DeFi and tokenized real-world assets, and institutional recognition is fairly good, but competition in the sector is fierce, and its narrative advantage has gradually been diluted by next-generation public chains. ONE is also based on a state-sharding architecture, relying on the beacon chain to schedule multiple shards. It was once a star project in the sharding track. However, a fatal logic vulnerability occurred in cross-shard receipt verification. Attackers could mint an unlimited amount of native tokens out of thin air. It only avoided a zero-outcome scenario because all network validators executed chain rollbacks, erasing the illegally minted tokens. Although the vulnerability patch has been sealed, the rollback also wiped out a large number of ordinary users’ transactions. Combined with multiple historical cross-chain bridge thefts and other deep-layer security incidents that severely damaged community trust, its current market cap has shrunk significantly.

While they are all wrapped in the same sharding “shell,” the root causes of risk are vastly different. ZIL has a hard supply cap; its risk comes from sell pressure on token unlocks. EGLD has token inflation release. ONE suffered a bottom-layer protocol flaw that allowed potentially infinite minting. Sharding is just a scalability technique, and it doesn’t automatically imply native security. Cross-shard interactions in a sharding architecture are inherently a high-risk point. Leverage Library warns not to be misled by technical narratives. A technical architecture is only the first layer. Token supply rules, the history of security incidents, and the token-holding structure jointly determine long-term valuation. ZIL has the foundation for “missed judgment and recovery.” EGLD needs to be evaluated by inflation and ecosystem execution. Even if ONE patches the漏洞, rebuilding trust is still a long road ahead, and the three cannot simply be grouped as sharding assets of the same level.

ZIL, EGLD, and ONE are the three major legacy sharded public chains. They achieve high-concurrency scaling through sharding. ZIL has a hard cap of 21 billion tokens; when something goes wrong, it’s confined to the wallet side, while the public chain’s underlying layer remains intact—but valuation is suppressed by the unlocking of locked tokens. EGLD uses adaptive sharding and has excellent performance, but the token faces inflationary releases. ONE suffered a fatal vulnerability triggered by explosive cross-shard activity; it avoided going to zero by using chain rollbacks, and the resulting trust damage is very difficult to repair. Sharding is only a scaling technology; cross-shard interactions themselves carry inherent risks. You can’t just focus on technical concepts and ignore security history.

RVN, DGB, and ZIL are all hard-cap Layer 1 blockchains with a total supply ceiling of 21 billion. Because of the consensus vulnerability panic, RVN’s market cap is actually lower than DGB’s, making it a typical case of an event being wrongly punished. The vulnerability won’t create any new tokens; the underlying hard cap hasn’t been broken, the asset issuance narrative is still intact, and the community is also working on stablecoins. In the short term, the market is swayed by sentiment, but in the long run, market cap will ultimately be weighed against fundamentals. Fixing a wrongly punished event takes time—wait for negative news to be fully digested and for incremental capital to come in.

The ONE hacking incident is full of drama. The hacker exploited a cross-shard vulnerability to illegally mint 4 billion ONE tokens, planning to dump them on the market to cash out for huge profits. However, verifiers across the network can execute a chain rollback—directly reverting to the block before the vulnerability was triggered. All of the tokens illegally minted by the hacker are zeroed out, leaving not a single one able to be taken. Not only are the stolen tokens erased into nothing, but the original tokens the hacker had staked on the network are also frozen along with the staking transactions within the rollback window. This sharply increases the attacker’s costs, and in the end, the hacker gains nothing.

The vulnerability has already been patched and the malicious minting of the same kind is completely prevented. The hacker’s arbitrage scheme has completely failed. But chain rollback is a heavy emergency measure. While it thwarts the hacker, it also wipes out more than 100,000 ordinary users’ normal transfers and staking transactions. Some ordinary holders’ legitimate on-chain actions are innocently undone, sparking community debate over the immutability of blockchain.

Even though the fatal risk of over-minting has been eliminated, the accumulation of multiple major security incidents on top of this rollback event means the project’s trust damage is objectively real. Security patches can fix code flaws, but rebuilding market confidence and the developer ecosystem cannot be done overnight, and the project’s subsequent remediation path will remain long. As Livermore said, the market will not play out exactly according to the participants’ script. The hacker’s calculations were meticulous, but the plan failed. Still, the hacker’s crushing defeat doesn’t automatically mean the token market will reverse. You can’t be overly optimistic based solely on this outcome.

ONE hacker attack incident is quite dramatic. The hacker exploited a vulnerability to create 4 billion ONE tokens, preparing to crash the market and cash out. But in the end, the execution chains across the entire network were rolled back—any illegally minted tokens were all wiped to zero. No one, including the hacker, could get a single token. Even the tokens the hacker had staked themselves were frozen. It was a busy operation that yielded nothing. Although the vulnerability was patched and the hacker’s scheme failed, the rollback erased a large number of ordinary users’ transactions, damaging community trust. The road to repair remains long.

Grayscale rebalanced its holdings in the second quarter. Apart from top-tier Layer-1 chains like APT, DOT, and AVAX, it continues to keep Mina and Celo. Competition among leading chains is fierce, with heavy trapped supply and limited upside elasticity. Mina is a ZK light chain with a fixed 22KB size, addressing the pain point of ledger bloat; Celo has transitioned to an OP-based Layer 2, and its native stablecoin has enabled genuinely cross-border payments. Institutional allocation to second-tier chains is meant to diversify risk and capture Alpha from more segmented narratives. But inclusion in an index doesn’t necessarily mean the price will rise. Mina faces inflation, Celo has pressure from token unlocks, and ultimately it comes down to how well the ecosystem delivers.

ONE currently has a market cap of only a little over ten million USD, and major exchanges have listed it. Many people compare it to ZIL and EGLD sharded chains and think it has been severely undervalued, so it could see a multi-fold surge. But we need to be clear: ONE has had protocol-layer vulnerabilities that allowed the creation of new coins out of thin air, and it only avoided being wiped out to zero by rolling back the chain. It has also suffered consecutive major security incidents, which have already seriously damaged market trust. A low market cap isn’t necessarily a mispricing; often it is the market pricing in the risk. A low price doesn’t equal true value. If you want to restore the market cap, you must first rebuild a strong security reputation and ecosystem—upside potential is not guaranteed.

Trump publicly urged Congress to quickly send the CLARITY crypto regulatory bill to the White House. The bill’s core is to clearly define the regulatory boundary between the SEC and the CFTC, ending the era of post-hoc retroactive classification. The House has already passed it, but it is stalled at the Senate-wide vote. Once the bill is successfully enacted, the rules will not change with a change of administration. AVAX, DOT, APT, Ronin, Celo, Mina, and RVN will all benefit from a clearer industry environment. However, the bill hasn’t been implemented yet—so for now it’s only an expected positive. Policy is just a catalyst; the market ultimately depends on the ecosystem and capital.

Policy warm winds first propelled BTC and ETH, the two major benchmark assets, to strengthen. As an industry ballast, both absorb large amounts of incremental capital, and the market front-runs a rebound. With the overall market sentiment beta recovering, RVN—regarded as a classic Bitcoin-style altcoin—integrates the two key advantages of Bitcoin and Ethereum, and is also likely to receive a sentiment-based premium alongside the broader environment. RVN is a PoW coin with a hard cap on total supply. It has the underlying attributes of a crypto commodity. If the regulatory framework becomes clearer afterward and overall market liquidity is released, it will also benefit from industry dividends.

Bull-market expectations are heating up, and stablecoins have already become a hot battleground that major public chains are racing to compete in. Celo has completed its transition to OP Layer 2, bringing its native stablecoin system to life—truly running through the real-world scenarios of mobile cross-border inclusive payments. AVAX, DOT, and APT have focused on building stablecoin ecosystems centered on DeFi and the RWA tokenization of real-world assets, meeting business needs from institutional clients. As a leading gaming public chain, Ronin leverages stablecoins to settle payments for in-game equipment and NFT items, laying a solid foundation for the on-chain gaming economy.

By contrast, RVN—thanks to the characteristics of its native asset issuance—has sparked community ideas about building a stablecoin, but this is still only at the conceptual stage. There is no working product yet, and there is still a long way to go before real implementation.

In a bull-market environment, the market will endlessly amplify the realm of imagination behind any given narrative. But a beautiful story does not necessarily translate into tangible investment returns. Whether a sector concept can turn into actual market performance ultimately depends on the pace of technical deployment, the scale of real users, and the participation of incremental capital. Don’t blindly go bullish based solely on one community’s idea—be especially wary of getting carried away by narrative-driven hype.

The bull market is here, and many people have a set narrative: that after ONE’s additional issuance shares return to the main force, it will be aggressively pumped, while RVN and ZIL will use the bad news to wash out holders, and then later we’ll see a “monster coin” run with dozens or even hundreds of times gains. But the reality needs to be clarified: the illegal token ONE was rolled back and deleted on-chain, and it does not automatically flow into the main force. Bad-news “wash trading” is only one of the conditions, not a guarantee of a必然 surge. The breakout of “妖币” (monster coins) is a very low-probability event; more small coins may bounce and then continue to fall quiet. Don’t take a fantasized main-force story as a fact that is destined to happen.

As bullish expectations heat up, stablecoins have become a core narrative track that major public chains are racing to develop. Celo has already completed its transformation and, leveraging OP‑Stack, has emerged as a standout among Ethereum L2 solutions. It natively supports the Mento multi-currency stablecoin system, focusing on mobile-first inclusive cross-border payments. It also supports paying fees with stablecoins, targets real payment scenarios in emerging markets worldwide, has massive real-world transaction volumes, and is one of the few L2 networks that genuinely uses stablecoins in everyday life.

AVAX, DOT, and APT are also rapidly rolling out stablecoin ecosystems. They have both externally compliant stablecoin issuances and incubate multiple native stablecoins to serve institutions’ RWA, DeFi lending, and on-chain settlement—driving rapid expansion of the sector’s ecosystem. Ronin has cemented its position as the king among gaming chains. Here, stablecoins play a crucial infrastructure role: in-game equipment and NFT items are traded and settled heavily using stablecoins such as USDC, addressing the pain point of price volatility caused by frequent buying and selling of in-game assets, and providing a stable unit of account for the economic circulation of play-to-earn.

In contrast, RVN—backed by its native asset issuance capabilities—has already initiated community-level plans for stablecoin-related development. With a PoW foundation hard-capped at a total supply of 21 billion coins and no premine, it has the potential to use stablecoins as a new narrative-driven growth increment. However, for now it remains only at the community conceptual stage, with no official products launched yet. Even within the same stablecoin narrative, the maturity and progress between projects are vastly different.

Celo has already operationalized real payment business; AVAX, DOT, and APT are more oriented toward DeFi and institutional assets; Ronin focuses on trading game items; and RVN is still in the planning phase. Livermore once said you must distinguish between narrative imagination and real-world execution. A bull market can amplify positives for the sector, but narrative does not equal realization. Some projects have already generated real transaction volumes, while others are still only community blueprints. Future progress will still depend on developer execution, user adoption, and support from incremental capital—so you shouldn’t be overly optimistic based solely on concepts.

Under the bull market, the stablecoin track is heating up. Celo, Ronin, and others have already been deployed, while the RVN stablecoin is still a community plan; its implementation remains to be verified.